Where is this thread going???

Okay Brad. Thanks.

I actually think this has been one of the best threads on the boards in some time. I mean, it seems to me that a well known (to us) primarily close-up magician appearing on a national show and giving a performance with some flaws in it would be a subject worth discussing. A bunch of people here seem to think we should just skewer the hosts while others think that we should examine and learn from Josh's performance. I'm in the latter camp, especially after watching the clip one or two more times. I was really struck on second viewing how awkward the beginning was. The hosts clearly wanted to talk for a few seconds and get to know Josh. Problem was, he had to stand awkwardly holding a balloon, and that meant his engaging with them seemed silly. So, his only choice was to quickly get into his act. As others have mentioned, the bottle production wasn't so smooth... Do any of us think anyone in the audience didn't know where the bottle came from? Then, he, a good-looking young guy, gives the bottle of champagne to the two women, which sets up the theme of flirtation which plays out, sometimes to Josh's expense, during the rest of the routine and to which some members here seemed really put off by.

When Brad references Josh not being in the moment, I understand what he is saying. I felt similarly when I saw the clip, but I chose to view it a different way -- as a product of Josh's persona. Josh's performing persona is of a young, charming, and very earnest and sincere lover of magic. We as magicians like that because Josh is very sincere about something that we ourselves love. And in his column and DVDs he's really into the intricacies of method, which we find both intellectually stimulating and entertaining. Suffice to say that I am a fan and have several of his books and DVDs.

As a performer for lay people, though, Josh is pretty straight ahead. Because he is so warm and friendly, I think his style is great for live performances and intimate venues. For TV, it might just need something more. He demonstrates humor, but there's not really wit, and certainly not irony or menace -- the kind of things that allow a performer to instantly create his own theatrical space. Rather than an interesting character with strange skills or even powers, Josh comes off as a nice guy who is good at tricks. Again, fun for us, but not so exciting for an audience that may not really like magic tricks. Imagine other performers with real, finely crafted personas -- Penn and Teller, Derren Brown, Ricky Jay, even David Blaine -- on the show and you can instantly see, I think, how the interaction with the hosts would have been different.

I realize I'm weighing in way too late on this thread, and I'm not trying to be contentious or overly critical. Frankly, as an amateur who likes to do tricks -- and who has nowhere near Josh's sleight-of-hand skills -- I saw too much of myself in his performance, which is why I'm finding it useful to think about and discuss.

It's difficult to come over well on TV if you're not trained in acting or have developed a "personality" over time. That's true for anyone. TV "likes" certain people and certain types of personalities.
That difficulty is compounded by the fact that magic is, and always has been, meant to be seen live. Magic does not look nearly as good, or as convincing, or as interesting, on TV as it does when it's performed in front of your eyeballs. The personality of the performer has to overcome that deficit before anything else.

An excellent example of how I am correct.

I recommend finding a clip of that appearance. Johnny is nothing but cordial and even helpful to Mr. Geller, giving him every opportunity to do what Geller claims he can do. And, in fact, Johnny said to the audience after the fact that Geller had mentioned he “wasn’t feeling strong” that night. Johnny was a complete gentleman.

The only thing Randi did was tell the Carson people what to set up and not let Geller’s people see the finished product. That is not conspiratorial; it’s making sure an experiment in psychic abilities has safeguards against fraud.

The only person who made Geller look foolish was Geller. That’s what happens when you are a fraud.

Dustin

I don't get all of the Carson hero worship. He was a bit of an a-hole on his show when it came to comedians. He would only let certain ones sit down on the couch if he deemed them worthy. It's a d***** move. Did he do this for actors promoting their next lousy movie or crappy tv show?

And the job of a tv host is not to make the guests look good. It's to make good television. I'm sick of tv hosts ass-kissing stars and tip-toeing around sensitive areas instead of asking them questions that listeners want to hear.

There are a dozen or two or more comedians who would not agree with you about how Carson treated them. A slew of guys and a few gals got their initial national exposure on The Tonight Show. Because they were unknown, they did not get to sit on the couch, but they got terrific air time, something they couldn't get any place else. Later, when their careers had taken off, many were invited over.

The show pays scale, a few hundred dollars, so no one went on the show for the money. They went for a variety of other reasons, often to plug a film or other project which is how the show could afford them.

Carson was well-liked in the entertainment business and seen by his peers and the older generation of performers as talented and skilled. They knew he wouldn't embarrass them with a stupid question just for a cheap laugh. That's why you saw Jack Benny, Bob Hope, Jimmy Stewart, and a host of the old Hollywood A List showing up with regularity on Johnny's show.

And Johnny did produce good television because when he went sky diving without talking to the network it was learned that The Tonight Show was responsible for something like one-third of the profits of NBC at the time. If it wasn't "good television" it wouldn't have attracted enough viewers to push up the price of time.

Carson's program was produced under the entertainment division of NBC, not the news department. When his guests sat down they knew they weren't going to be grilled for "questions people wanted answered." It was an entertainment program, not a news or investigative journalism show.

Myrtle Young

She was the "potato chip lady" who brought her collection of potato chips that looked like stuff. When she was facing Ed, Johnny loudly ate a potato chip and she thought he'd eaten one of her collection. Johnny played it as if it was an innocent misunderstanding, but there is no way he didn't know it would get exactly the reaction it did. The clip is available on Youtube, and the laugh was at her expense.

But despite this counter-example, I agree with Dustin. No talk show host ever has given guests such a supportive place to do well. Maybe the reason I remember this clip after 20 years is that it was so unusual for Johnny to make fun of a "civilian", even in this mild way.

Given the hundreds of comics who appeared that's hardly an impressive argument.

Dustin: Zha Zha Gabor

Bill,

That would be a great one if it ever happened. It never did. That story is pure urban legend (no matter how many people tell you they "saw it").

As far as comedians go, David Alexander is only speaking of those who became enormous stars.

I am willing to bet that the hundreds of men and women who made it to that stage would disagree with Jeremy.

Being called to the couch was something that was earned and comedians knew this going in and strived to reach that level of skill. Just getting on the show once was a big deal. Getting on twice or more meant you had a real shot at a good career. It took Steve Martin many appearances to finally get called over, while Steven Wright made it on his first appearance. It all depended on how well you did. Nothing d*******ish about that.

The notion that every other type of guest gets to the couch is wrong. Not every musician, singer, band, juggler, magician, etc. made it over to the couch. (If you have the chance, ask Paul Gertner about what a big deal it was for him to be called to the couch—after his second or third appearance—for just the sign off!)

Comparing variety acts to film/screen stars or authors and folks like that is just pure nonsense. What are these folks going to do? Read sides from their scripts? Read a page from their book? Please. (I can't even believe that I have to point out the absurdity of that.).

As for Myrtle, a very famous clip (that Johnny loved to show on his anniversary shows), again, watch the whole thing. Yes, the initial laugh was at her expense and after she saw the joke, she laughed too. Unfortunately the clip on YouTube stops well before the end of her appearance. There was more than him “playing innocent.” (I guess you’ll have to trust me on that.)

I never said Johnny never made jokes at another’s expense, but he’d always do what he could to take the sting out. And that's what sets him apart from others who just make someone else look foolish for a laugh.

Were/are there people who thought Johnny was a prick? Absolutely! Wayne Newton comes immediately to mind. Newton hated Johnny with a passion and trash talks him to this day. He accused Johnny of making jokes at his expense early in his career (in regards to the very high voice he used then). He never forgave Carson for that.

But Newton was not on the show then either.

Dustin

I just watched this and I have to say that I think Josh did a very good job.

I've done a lot of live TV (including the Today show) and I know just how hard it can be.

Josh did very well. I don't think the hosts were particularly mean spirited or difficult; I actually think they gave Josh a lot of energy and got really involved in what he was doing. The mistake was Josh's fault as the performer, not the host's for spotting it, and she was so caught in the moment she reacted like a real spectator. Josh handled it like a pro, in my opinion.

All in all it was an excellent plug for his book (which I bought my son this Xmas) and great publicity for Josh himself.

P

Ok, clearly should have used a smiley with the Gabor post, but since someone else had posted the potato chip lady I thought the point was made. I saw that one, and have it on one of my Best of Carson tapes if memory serves. The fact that she was relieved when she found out it was a (mean spirited) joke and laughed to express that relief, doesn't change the fact that it was a mean joke to play on an old lady who was clearly proud of her collection.

I recall a feud with Barbra Streisand, where Johnny was an ass, but since it was over her canceling an appearance I guess that doesn't count. It's ok to treat a potential guest like crap, if they aren't there making you money...

My point wasn't that Johnny was a bad guy, or that he wasn't one of the best talk show hosts ever, but that he treated magician differently that other guests, and I for one don't think that make him the "best ever." If magic can't stand on it's own, without the host "helping" then it doesn't deserve to be on TV.

Watch Michael Ammar in the aforementioned clip, or Roth on Late Night, or Mike Skinner on Tonight. That's good magic, not because the host is stooging for the performer, but because the performers are brilliant at what they do.

A comic's first appearance on the Carson show could add a zero or two to a comic's income. To be chosen for the show was to join the elite. To be called to the couch was an annointing.

There was nothing d****** anout it. It was a gift that Carson bestowed upon those he felt were exceptional, NOT something he withheld from someone who dispeased him.

But that was a different era, when being on TV acutally MEANT something.

Here is Josh on Washington, D.C.'s Channel 5 Fox News in November plugging his book ....


http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/Insid...mp;pageId=5.2.1

Great job. Josh must have been "in the moment" as Geoffrey Rush would say.

Are any of the effects he performed in either clip explained in his book?

You gotta love the reaction at the end of the Ambitious Card routine on the Fox channel clip:

One of the newscasters shouted "Are you ******** me?!?"

Great job Josh.

Well....that's one of Carlins 7, just 6 to go.

Actually, Mark Harmon used the "S" word on a Chicago Hope episode some years back.

This clip shows just how good Josh is.....

Adrian

HECKLERS: A short film about hecklers starring Josh Jay.

That Fox clip was nice. I particularly like the shout-out to Al Cohen.

This was most definitely a more sympathetic audience. Tony Perkins (the weather guy, on the right) mentions having gone into Al's shop back in the day.

Wow! Great short film by Joshua. Thanks for sharing the Hecklers bit with us David. I think his cool personality comes out again,as it did with the gababout gals on Today show. His professionalism is something that we all should be proud of.

No.

The bottle production with the balloon-bursting he did on the Today show was invented by a French Magician and we published it years ago in Genii.

I believe that would be David Stone.

Not David Stone. A French magic dealer--can't remember his name.

Are you thinking of the Splash Bottle Production by Damien Vappereau and Jean-Mark Sainclaire?

Take care, Ian

Yes, that's it.

Those guys are terrific. I visited their shop in Paris, and they couldn't have been more welcoming.

they were going to publish a book about their marked deck work...what they showed me was really cool. Does anyone know if it ever came out? If it did, did it get translated into English?

They had the decks at Blackpool a couple of years ago, but I don't remember a book.

Take care, Ian

RK wrote:
'My hands would problaby shake so much they would think I was having an epileptic attack'

Serious question: How many years of daily tinkering with the pasteboards , writing instructional books and tapes does one require before one can do a friggin card trick on TV without shaking like a leaf or flashing ( part of ) the method?

Well, NONE of what you gave as examples would help you at all with nerves in front of an audience. So...an infinite enumber of years?

I think Josh Jay did very well in the face of two egocentric presenters. Yes, his "move" was jerky, and yes - maybe he could have "got out" of it in a different way. Although he's 27, he looks much younger and "game" for a couple of old birds! But, well done Josh Jay! Well done because he came over better than they tried to make him look; and they came over a tad churlish!

I have "done" only a few T.V shows over the years and if I've learnt only one thing, it's this: ONLY do sure-fire stuff that's not angly or misdirection-prone. The camera doesn't react like a live punter and T.V hosts usually bait magicians and "look out" for "moves" and so on. (If it was me [working for a churlish host], I'd have done a trick that allowed them to shuffle the deck at the start. It kind of takes the wind out of their sails and frustrates them further when you come to a rip-roaring conclusion.)

Anyway, again - well done Josh Jay.

Paul Gordon

And here is Josh on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2008/11/14/dcl.delaney.joshua.jay.cnn?iref=videosearch

000 wrote: "Serious question: How many years of daily tinkering with the pasteboards, writing instructional books and tapes does one require before one can do a friggin card trick on TV without shaking like a leaf or flashing (part of) the method?"

It's not the technical aspect: I could go on TV and do The Phoenix Aces without breaking a sweat. It's the presentational aspect, and your question leads directly to that: all of the activies you cite are things one does alone. I used to perform card magic a lot for laymen as both a kid and, and later, hanging out in singles' bars in Manhattan for years. I got a lot of experience performing for men and women in their late teens (remember when it was legal to drink at 18?) through early 30s. While they were drinking and socializing. I didn't approach anyone, just sat at the bar fiddling with the deck. They approached me. I learned the real lesson: that with nothing more than a deck of cards, you can kill laymen repeatedly, over and over, and that women DO love card tricks when you have the right personality and presentation.

But all of that was many decades ago in my life. It doesn't matter how much you think about magic, or practice, in isolation: nothing makes you a performer but working for real people on a regular basis. Something that, as the editor of Genii, and with a family and young daughter, I don't have the time or energy (at middle age) to do.

I studied acting at the Adler Conservatory through NYU for several years. I'd been performing in plays and talent shows at school and camp since age 6 or 7. But the more I studied, and the older I got, the worse my nerves would get before a performance. I eventually decided that it wasn't worth it. I don't get nervous before lectures for magicians, or when I do a card trick for laymen on the spur of the moment, however doing a TV spot in front of millions would definitely jangle my nerves to the point that the discomfort isn't worth it.

If I were going to write a book for the public and go on a publicity tour, I would find some way to do a lot of magic for real people and start performing for them as far in advance as possible--months if I could--in order to get back into the swing. I would still be nervous on TV, but I would be prepared.

Josh Jay is a professional magician, and I bet he does tricks for people many times a week. But his experience performing on TV is not nearly as extensive as his live performing experience. One thing that you can learn from watching David Copperfield is not to take chances on TV. You really can't rely on misdirection at all--that's one of the reasons TV sucks the life out of magic. The version of the Fusion trick that Josh did relies on misdirection to ditch a card--not a good idea on TV, it would seem, since not only could we see and hear it, but Kathy Lee saw it as well. It was a poor choice, but Josh is young and he learns from that sort of thing--as we all do.

Once thing I've noticed is that magicians who aren't used to being closely miked don't understand what things can be heard when the volume is turned up and the mike is on your body. All sorts of small sounds that are never heard when there's ambient noise in a room (such as the sound a Pass might make) are plainly audible on TV depending on how you're miked.

Hey guys,

Josh is a friend and I simply can't agree with what a select few are
saying about him. Many people on the board recognized, as I do, just
how tough the Today Show situation was. Here's another example of Josh
handling himself well, this time with a more supportive host. It's a
cool little segment.

http://www.onlinemagicclub.com/2008/11/20/joshua-jay-on-cnn-talking-about-his-new-book/

Joel Givens

Josh's experience with Kathy Lee reminded me of what I recently read in Aaron Fisher's new Genii column "Tension, Focus, and Design in Card Magic: "As Erdnase wrote in 1902, even a hint of suspicion will spoil the ruse. If your spectator senses even the barest touch of impropriety, you're busted."

The cheerleaders at Chateau Falanga are far, far away...

I have been reading this thread with interest, sorry to join the discussion so late, but it was a link on another forum which brought me here.

On that particular discussion board someone made the observation that (I'm paraphrasing here) the purpose behind Josh's appearance on the show was to promote a new book that teaches magic.

What seems missing on this thread is any discussion about how this position may have squewed Kathy and Hooda's reactions towards Joshua Jay as a guest on the show.

I've read the comments above about them being coogars and trite and all that, but I imagine they may have interacted with him differently if his purpose was solely to entertain rather than to promote the sale of a book which offers non-magicians a chance to learn magic.

Remember that chapter in Strong Magic about Prestige?

I am sure they would have treated him differently had they be told that he was only there to entertain.

He would have had an easier time performing and he would have been much more entertaining had he checked the pitchman at the door.

Hopefully they will have him back on we will all get to see how much better he will be (and he is very good) when he just comes to be "josh in the raw" and without the pretenses (real or imagined?) of, "remember the secrets are for sale." The psychology is all wrong.

Still overall KLG and Hooda weren't that bad and neither was Josh.

I don't think they would have behaved any differently if the purpose of his appearance was not to sell something. (Most of the appearances on most shows are promotional in nature.)

As for your comment about Strong Magic, I would take most of what you read in there with a grain of salt. It's a book for amateurs.

FYI -- Josh announced via his Facebook status today that he will be on Good Morning America on Monday and "this time he ain't takin no shit."

There you have it!

He should have done one of his card to impossible locations. I've seen him do several and it frys the lay people. His Think of a Card using the pass would have been good too.

Richard, are you serious?

There is a difference in appearing on a show for the purpose of selling a book vs. doing a segment to promote one's appearance at bla bla bla venue in NYC or what have you.

The hosts can only react to the guest based on their perception of his purpose and stature. Coming on the show with the idea of selling a book that "reveals secrets" (against the magicians code) and doing a few tricks is very different from giving the audience a taste of your magic for the sheer purpose of entertaining them.

I think this goes along loosely with what Brad Henderson re: "doing material" vs. reacting to the hosts.

But overall I think Josh did a good job handling himself on the show, and dealing with some of the challenges it presented, his book is very good too.

Best of luck to Josh on the next segment!

What book would you recommend for professionals like you and I?

Very funny, Walter!

What I would recommend is avoiding tripe like Strong Magic and watching good magicians perform, either live or recorded. Then performing yourself and developing a personal style. It's not that difficult, it's not brain surgery, and you don't have to read crap about Alfred Hitchcock movies to do it.

Now, wait a minute. You didn't say it was tripe and for amateurs while you were happily taking my check for it. I wouldn't have bought it had you properly informed me, instead of advertising it like it was one of the best things ever. Since you clearly misrepresented the book back then, can I have my damn money back now?

I don't want to be responsible for derailing what was a good thread about Josh Jay's appearance on Good Morning Amemerica.

I am very surprised to hear that Richard Kaufman feels that Ortiz's book is "tripe" (especially since he published it) but, he is intitled to his oppinion. I brought up the general issue of "prestige" and would have expeceted a response relivant to that particular variable rather than a response that seems to be none other than a spring-board for negative criticism regarding Strong Magic and/or Darwin Ortiz.

Anyway Josh Jay is a class act and can't wait to see him again on T.V.

-Mark

The only reason I published Strong Magic was because I wanted the "trick" book: Card Shark (it was a package deal). As it turned out, Card Shark--a very good book--sold only so-so, while Strong Magic sold well. Who could predict it?

Sorry, Disparity1, there are no refunds. All publishers, at one time or another, for contractual reasons or otherwise, publish books whose final product they are not happy with. Strong Magic might have been a good book, but it didn't turn out that way.

Many other people disagree with my assessment and they're very pleased with it. Many think it is a great book. For them, it was money well spent. If most people shared my opinion, the book would have sold poorly and lost money (and as the publisher, publishing a bad book, I would have paid the price--which was to get to publish Card Shark). I have published lousy books that have sold very well, and superb books that have sold poorly. You really can't tell what people are going to buy.

Hey, I didn't question your motives for publishing the book, just the fact that you sold it to us one way and now tell us that was all a lie.

Besides, you don't recognize ironic humor?

As for not being able to tell what people are going to buy, that's not true. Everyone knew Sexy Magic was going to stink.

I guess disparity can't formulate his own opinions or thought for himself deciding wether the book was good or not. Somebody on a thread on the internet had to tell him. Just because someone does'nt like a certain product don't mean others do. Even if its the person pushing the product.

I didn't know what anyone's opinion of Sexy Magic was going to be. I think Hodges is a great illustrator, and the original French edition is highly collectible. Perhaps my written instructions for the tricks were too literal for your taste.

Richard, don't know if you've ever discussed it else where - but perhaps you could start a new post on Strong Magic and what aspects you didn't agree with ?

I think the readers of the forum appreciate your honesty ...

I can and have, and thanks for being beside the point. If the subtle and dry humor in this situation flies over your head, try standing up.

If I may, briefly, get back on topic about Josh Jay: I think Josh has handled himself greatly in these environments. This is a tough gig and there are no "re-takes" if you screw up.

Regarding getting nervous: I find that I get nervous in just about any new type of venue I haven't performed in. For example, I've performed in front of 1,000 people on stage (one of my largest crowds, and a venue I've done many times - that is, a stage) and not even had the least bit of shakes. No doubt, I'm focused, but not "nervous". This Christmas I performed in front of a large group of family members I hadn't seen in a long time. You wouldn't think it would be an issue, but I found myself actually getting nervous - like, shaky nerves. I couldn't believe it. 100's of strangers - no problem. Family - I shake. Go figure.

That's understandable. At some level with family, you probably feel judged.

One day I'll write a long piece critiquing Strong Magic called "Weak Magic." Until then, I've said plenty.

Is it going to be called "The Magic Of Jamy Ian Swiss"?

Tut, tut, Walter. That was silly ... even for a bear.

Ooh, ooh, a better title: Reversal of Fortune.

I found Josh to be uniquely poised on his Today Show appearance, and that's something you can't learn from a magic book. I'm a fan, and his legion is growing.

I watched Good Morning America today and didn't see Josh. Does anyone know what happended? Perhaps he got bumped by the Golden Globe coverage?

If I understand his posts correctly, I think Mr. Kaufman has nailed it on the head:

1) Hosts of live TV shows are so comfortable in that environment, that they're going to act just like any other spectator.

2) Josh could have chosen better, less risky effects.

3) He's a young performer who made a mistake because he did not know how to handle the situation when it came up.

Additionally, the "Up The Sleeve" comment should have set off all kinds of alarms in his head-- saying "Frisk Me" actually encouraged the behaviour.

C

I think you'll find Josh has had more 'real world' experience than many of the armchair pundits who inhabit magic forums.

And so he may, however he does not have a lot of television experience.

Many? Yes.
All? No.

c

Perhaps. Certainly compared to some.

Your comment is undoubtedly true.

This is confusing to me. You said you only published Strong Magic so you could get another book. Does that mean that you published, marketed and promoted what you thought was "Tripe"?

Because in order to do that, wouldn't you have to "pretend" it's a good book? And if that's what you did, isn't that dishonest?

Maybe I misunderstood....

c

I'm with Richard on this. The last thing magic needs is a comprehensive text book on the techniques of showmanship, when you can watch Eugene Burger's Magical Voyages DVDs and see how it should be done.

Jokes aside, I couldn't care less whether Richard likes the books he publishes or even knows whether they are a work of genius or not. We owe him a huge debt for a legacy of great magic books, publisher savant or not.

I am neither for or against Richard on this until I understand his reasoning on what he did..

c

Consider that this is a very common practice in the publishing and entertainment industry and has gone on for many years and never been considered dishonest.

Well-known actors will use their audience-appeal to negotiate for a pet movie project in exchange for a performance in the latest episode of a movie series that the studio thinks will be a hit. The studio may not put the same amount of backing in the actor's pet project - but again - the studio is putting up the money and resources.

The same goes for publishing - many contracts have been signed for literally hundreds of years for authors to have a new novel published in exchange for another three book contract for a sequel of the same characters the author been writing about (and selling) for 20 years.

I don't think that is dishonest - it is just negotiation.

I understand. I don't agree, but I understand your opinion.

c

I understand that's pretty much how Congress works as well.

Yes, but how many people appreciate the way Congress works?
My point here is that just because other people/organizations do something a certain way does not mean that way is honest or moral.

Accepted behaviour doesn't mean it's moral behaviour.

Still waiting on Mr. Kaufman's response.

c

I don't think it's dishonest to publish books that don't appeal to you as a reader. If you are in the business of publishing, that's exactly what you do.

Richard probably doesn't 'love' every type of trick or every opnion in Genii either. And why would anyone?

If Richard wrote "I love Strong Magic," or even "this book is great," in his advertisements, then he's being dishonest. Did he? If the answer is no, then how can you accuse him of dishonesty? What did he do that was not honest?

Oh mee, Oh myy, what would we all do if Richard said he didn't like the Dingle book? Stop doing Rollover Aces?

Get a life, people. Kaufman sells books (typically very good ones). People buy them. No gun was held to anyone's head. And 90% of magic ad copy is BS, so you might as well get off that train.

Does the fact that I left three bits of "tripe" in a recent publication of mine make me dishonest? What of the positive comments I've since received on one of those three? Shall I notify those readers of their errors in judgment?

Richard's opinion of Strong Magic was held by many when it was published. But that didn't stop Richard from reprinting it three more times.

This book has always been controversial. I brought this up in my piece on the book in the "Book of the Month " section back in 2003:

http://www.geniimagazine.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=148331

(Unfortunately the link to the Jamy Ian Swiss review at the end of my piece no longer works.)

Dustin

I'm not saying he's honest OR dishonest... I'll wait until he responds.

I'm waiting for his response. He's a grownup-- let him speak/write for himself...

c

I think "many" is an exaggeration. The review in MAGIC and the review in Genii were negative, however. Not necessarily impartial, but that's another issue.

I understand it has been reprinted more than three times, and there is also a Spanish edition. So it doesn't seem to suck as much as a few might suppose.

But I agree with the other comments. Who cares if Richard Kaufman likes or loathes the books he publishes? Who cares if he can or cannot tell shit from cold plum pudding? The fact is he publishes books magicians want to read - and I for one am grateful to him for it.

Many is not an exaggeration for I am not just talking about magazine reviews. Many working professionals at the time were quite vocal in their negative view of the book. (I cover this in my piece.)

How many is many? What's the exact number here?

Still, in the end, who cares? The opinions of the pros on the dust cover are positive, as are those of many pros and amateurs since. It's perhaps not widely known regarding the politics of envy and revenge that emerged surrounding the book. But that, my dears, is a story for another evening.

(Blows out the candle).

Well THESE guys thought it was a good book:
"The book is readable, it's extremely clear, it's clear, it's thrilling in its intellectual adventure. And it's also, clearly, enormously practical. It makes you think. It enriches you as an artist (and therefore as a human being.)" - Juan Tamariz

"A wonderful, wonderful book filled with practical advice. It should be every serious close-up worker's next purchase." - David Williamson

"A thought-provoking analysis of the performance of close-up magic. Just reading it was motivating. I incorporated some of Darwin's suggestions in to my presentations the same day I read them. Highly recommended to the serious student of close-up magic." - Paul Gertner

"Darwin Ortiz, one of my favorite performers has done it again. This time he has captured the essence of creative showmanship for magicians." - Michael Skinner

But HEY-- whadda THEY know?

c

Yeah, but Juan Tamariz isn't exactly in Jamy Ian Swiss's league, is he?

Don't know. What league is Swiss in?

c

You're assuming they actually read the book before giving the quotes.

You're assuming they read more than one chapter of the book.

You're assuming they didn't just give the quotes because they're friends and the author asked.

And if you assume those things, then you don't know anything about the publishing business.

Almost every working pro that I know owns and have read Strong Magic. Some of them have stated that they do not agree with everything Mr. Ortiz wrote but they still were able to use quite a bit of the techniques taught in the book (especially scripting their routines).

I do remember some of the magicians blasting the book but I think in most cases, it had little to do with the contents of the book and more to do with the their opinion of the author.

I certainly got quite a bit out of it and I knew I was in good company when magicians I have the utmost respect for like Paul Gertner, David Williamson, Juan Tamariz, Rene Lavand, Mike Skinner and many others praised it.

So would you answer my question now? And are you saying that the people I quoted are dishonest?

c

I would say that it's possible you're being naive if you think every quote you read on a dustjacket is coming from someone who has closely read and deeply thought about the book in question.

It sounds a lot like he's saying 1) he lied about the quality of the book, thinking it was tripe but marketing it as a good one through three reprints and 2) everybody in the publishing business is a damn liar.

I'm not sure this has occurred to certain people, but most of us tend to do business with and buy products from people we see as having integrity. In a field as small as ours, our buying from certain publishers or retailers and not others is as much a sign of respect and trust as it is a desire for the product itself. If someone we're buying from proves to be dishonest, as a collective, we're simply less likely to buy from him. One extreme example of this is sitting in Idaho as we speak. I'm not sure what Richard's purpose is in publicly telling us that not only can we not take what he says at face value, but neither can we believe the people who simply lend quotes and endorsements. Now, we understand that there's a certain amount of salt we have to take with any endorsement, but this kind of revelation simply can't be good for his relationship with his customers. I started giving him a hard time as kind of a joke, but it's getting less funny as we go.

You're being naive in the ways of business. Everyone, no matter who it is, or what he or she produces, goes into every project with the best of intentions. The end result does not always reflect that, however because of the time and money invested, it still must be brought to market so you don't loose your shirt on the deal.

I thought Strong Magic had the potential to be a good book, however all of my suggested edits were rejected. It needed to be stronger and more convincing in its arguments. It's a deeply flawed book that might provide interest to people who have access to no other forms of information on how to increase the quality of their close-up performances.

I assumed it would be published, sell modestly, and the rest of the copies would sit in the warehouse. Card Shark is the book I wanted to publish. I was extremely surprised when Strong Magic sold so well (and so was its author, who made its publication a condition of my being able to publish the trick book).

Who could have predicted the market reaction to both books? Enthusiasm for the bad book, and indifference to the good book.

I'll give you an example of another poor book I published: The Now You See It, Now You Don't Notebook by Bill Tarr. When Bill approached me about doing a large book it sounded great, and I paid him a good advance. What I received was in fact a not very good book when compared to other books on the market (though it has some good things in it). By this time in the process you're already too far down the pike to turn back, so the book has to come out and you know it's not going to sell well. In this case, my prediction was correct.

If you don't think this happens all the time in the "real" world, with movies, books, CDs, and every other thing that's brought to market then you're incredibly naive. And it's the case with almost every other publisher and dealer in magic as well, of both books, DVDS, tricks, whatever. I'm happy to say, in fact proud to say, that it has only happened to me a VERY few times. When you consider the number of books and other items I've published over the last 30 years, that's a pretty good record.

I also don't expect anyone else in our field to jump in here with their own mea culpa.

I'm just being brutally honest with you. You don't often get that in the business world.

This thread has become silly. Disparity seems determined to have Richard admit that he's dishonest because he published a book he didn't like or think much of. This on-going nonsense reflects more on Disparity’s lack of sophistication that it does Richard’s integrity.

Having owned a niche publishing company that served a small community I know many of the hazards that Richard faces. Primarily, one must make decisions about what to publish based on a number of factors. Mostly, one publishes to make money. If you don’t then it isn’t a business. It’s a self-indulgent, ego-centric hobby.

You make the best deals you can and go to press with material you think will sell to your market. Sometimes you’re decisions are proven correct and sometimes you’re surprised at what the public will buy. The major publishing firms are filled with stories of books acquired for huge sums only to fall flat with tens of thousands of returns, and other books with little to no support from the publisher taking off and selling many editions. (My old literary agent brokered the deal with OJ’s lawyer Johnny Cochran for over $4 million. The book came and went in the blink of an eye. Then there's Tom Clancy and that Rowling woman, both of whom had their manuscripts turned down and were eventually picked up by small publishers.)

Richard admits he had to publish Strong Magic as part of a deal to get another title from the same author. He has an opinion of Strong Magic and he revealed it here. So what! I cannot comment on Strong Magic because I haven’t read it. Were it a book by an experienced stage performer who was passing along insights he’d developed over years of performing I would have bought it in a heartbeat. But he isn’t and I didn’t.

That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value for others, which is evidenced by Richie reprinting it to satisfy the demand. Richard’s primary responsibility is to support his family. One of the ways he does that is through publishing magic books. If he were only to publish the books personally liked I suspect his list would be shorter and he would have gone out of business a long time ago. That certainly was my situation when I was publishing.

If you think jacket blurbs are not always honest, you should try book reviewers. Having had some experience with major reviewers (as opposed to the mildly incestuous magic community) I can speak to that. Reviewers come in a variety of types from honest to stupid. Some have their own agenda in reviewing. I actually had one SF reviewer castigate my book because I misspelled the first name of a well-known SF author. I missed it. My editor missed it. The copy editor missed it. It probably wasn’t the worst part of a 600-page book, but that was enough for the reviewer to spend several paragraphs knocking a book that took almost three years to research and write. I also had reviewers review the book from the press release. (I did get a lot of good reviews, so I’m not unhappy with reviewers, just using my own experience as illustration. This has also been the experience of writer friends.)

So, having been in the big world of New York publishers with a major biography of an iconic figure of the 20th Century, you’ll forgive me if I find the direction this thread has taken to be childish and simplistic.

So, let’s stop the silliness and move on to productive discussions rather than trying to play semantic games to no good end.